Real evidnce against AGW

[TopGunna]

When my kids were little the doctors did predict what height they would grow to, based on what height they were at that age and the heights of me and my husband (IIFC). So while the parent's milk consumption might not be an indicator, the milk consumption of generations may be an indicator. Which is where genetics comes into play.

I don't think I made my point as clearly as I would have liked.

We're testing the hypothesis of milk consumption's effect on height. The hypothesis is that the nutritional value of milk helps with growth (A causes B). I believe that is true (much like I believe that atmospheric CO2 does trap heat).

My point is that you can't infer that a tall person is tall because they drank lots of milk growing up. If A always causes B, and B is observed, that does not necessarily mean that A is present. There may be other variables responsble for B that are much more important - things you mentioned, like the height of the parents (or in the AGW case, solar variations or the thousands of other variables we don't understand nearly as well).

However, the contrapositive can be tested to invalidate the original hypothesis. If A always causes B, and B is not present, then A must not be at work. In other words, a very short person may consume a lot of milk but have no height to show for it - meaning that milk consumption is not the most important predictor of someone's height. The other variables are the more important ones to consider.

Likewise, if temperatures have dropped over the past 10 years, CO2 forcings cannot be driving the temperature. CO2 does cause heat to trap, which in turn causes more CO2 to evaporate from the oceans. If this were the only forcing at work, this infinite loop would have led to runaway temperatures a long time ago. The fact that other variables in our climate are allowing this excess heat to escape tells me that those variables are the ones we should concern ourselves with.

 

[Bern80]

I don't think I made my point as clearly as I would have liked.

We're testing the hypothesis of milk consumption's effect on height. The hypothesis is that the nutritional value of milk helps with growth (A causes B). I believe that is true (much like I believe that atmospheric CO2 does trap heat).

My point is that you can't infer that a tall person is tall because they drank lots of milk growing up. If A always causes B, and B is observed, that does not necessarily mean that A is present. There may be other variables responsble for B that are much more important - things you mentioned, like the height of the parents (or in the AGW case, solar variations or the thousands of other variables we don't understand nearly as well).

However, the contrapositive can be tested to invalidate the original hypothesis. If A always causes B, and B is not present, then A must not be at work. In other words, a very short person may consume a lot of milk but have no height to show for it - meaning that milk consumption is not the most important predictor of someone's height. The other variables are the more important ones to consider.

Likewise, if temperatures have dropped over the past 10 years, CO2 forcings cannot be driving the temperature. CO2 does cause heat to trap, which in turn causes more CO2 to evaporate from the oceans. If this were the only forcing at work, this infinite loop would have led to runaway temperatures a long time ago. The fact that other variables in our climate are allowing this excess heat to escape tells me that those variables are the ones we should concern ourselves with.

Good point. There have been many discussions about what models can predict and how accurate they are. I have not heard of a model yet that predicted the warming then 10 year cooling we are seeing now. At this time, models are unable to predict with an real certainty, climate change long term.

What is mind boggling to me is that people can't see that the actual science overwhelmingly does not support AGW, yet people continue to say there is scientific consensus.

 

[CharlestonChad]

He's wrong. This is the refutation I expected of course. When people like Fred Singer or Monckton present oppossing veiws with actual science and hard evidence that flys in the face of your current belief you attempt to make up some asinine reason as to why the source is not credible, because you really can't refute the actual evidence.

What the fuck are you rambling about? I asked if it was peer reviewed. Was it peer reviewed, or self reviewed? The peer review process is essential to the credibility of research. I refuse to read and/or be influenced by research that doesn't get peer reviewed. This is no fucking asinine reason. If you think it is, then you probably shouldn't have anything to do with a science discussion.

 

[Bootneck]

I am open to arguments which refute this theory, but to date nobody has really made an argument which entirely negates it.

I would dearly love to discover that the manmade global problem theory is entirely wrong, (I like living in a heated home and driving a car as much as the next guy) but as yet I am unconvinced that one can completely dismiss that theory.

Then perhaps you may be interested in this from the Daily Telegraph:

Scientists have uncovered a treasure trove of meteorological information contained in the detailed logs kept by those on board the vessels that established Britain's great seafaring tradition including those on Nelsons' Victory and Cook's Endeavour.

Every Royal Naval ship kept a detailed record of climate including air pressure, wind strength, air and sea temperature and major meteorological disturbances.

A group of academics and Met Office scientists has unearthed the records dating from the 1600s and examined more than 6,000 logs, which have provided one of the world's best sources for long-term weather data.

Their studies have raised questions about modern climate change theories. A paper by Dennis Wheeler, a geographer based at Sunderland University, recounts an increasing number of summer storms over Britain in the late 17th century.

The records also suggest that Europe saw a spell of rapid warming, similar to that experienced today, during the 1730s that must have been caused naturally.

Lord Nelson and Captain Cook's shiplogs question climate change theories - Telegraph

 

[Bern80]

What the fuck are you rambling about? I asked if it was peer reviewed. Was it peer reviewed, or self reviewed? The peer review process is essential to the credibility of research. I refuse to read and/or be influenced by research that doesn't get peer reviewed. This is no fucking asinine reason. If you think it is, then you probably shouldn't have anything to do with a science discussion.

I said he was wrong because it was peer reviewed and the APS lied about it, which he provided evidence for. As others have pointed out this instance shows why peer review is becomeing more and more meaningless because of the politics involved.

 

[TopGunna]

What the fuck are you rambling about? I asked if it was peer reviewed. Was it peer reviewed, or self reviewed? The peer review process is essential to the credibility of research. I refuse to read and/or be influenced by research that doesn't get peer reviewed. This is no fucking asinine reason. If you think it is, then you probably shouldn't have anything to do with a science discussion.

Peer review might be essential in social sciences, but certainly not physical sciences! Pharmacists "peer-review" the lab results of every miracle diet drug pill on the market - certainly empirical evidence has proven most of those "peer-reviewed" results worthless.

Physical science is about testing a hypothesis, and replicating results while controlling for variables. Any hypothesis is much easier to falsify than it is to validate, and any good scientist knows this.

"Peer review" might mean something in social sciences, but in physical sciences, it's only a product of confirmation biases - results must be replicated.

 

[midcan5]

Many nights I wake in a cold sweat pillow soaked after a dream that gw is really just made up - I wake the wife and tell her why are they doing this to us - why - she kicks me and tells me gw is ruining our marriage so I wake the kids and they cry and wonder why is gw so important and i tell them it's all made up but they go back to sleep so i grab the paper boy off his bike and he screams - not another morning of your telling me about the made-up gw - he tells me next time he is going to drive his dad's car and run me over - so i go to dunkin donuts and tell all the Indians - they ask me what i want and i tell them about how gw is made up and not real and they smile and ask me what i want - so i tell an old lady in line and she says she'll call the police if I tell her once more that gw is made up....

whew...it was only a dream...or was it... which is it...

 

[Bern80]

Many nights I wake in a cold sweat pillow soaked after a dream that gw is really just made up - I wake the wife and tell her why are they doing this to us - why - she kicks me and tells me gw is ruining our marriage so I wake the kids and they cry and wonder why is gw so important and i tell them it's all made up but they go back to sleep so i grab the paper boy off his bike and he screams - not another morning of your telling me about the made-up gw - he tells me next time he is going to drive his dad's car and run me over - so i go to dunkin donuts and tell all the Indians - they ask me what i want and i tell them about how gw is made up and not real and they smile and ask me what i want - so i tell an old lady in line and she says she'll call the police if I tell her once more that gw is made up....

whew...it was only a dream...or was it... which is it...

I realize you're just trying to be funny, but don't mischaracterize what people are saying. No one is saying global warming is made up. The historical record is pretty clear that have been warming (and cooling, and warming, and cooling, and warming). For the past 10 or so years or so we have actually been cooling. True beleiver Kirk posted a graph (albeit inadvertantly) showing just that. You have links above of counter arguments and historical records showing this is not the first time the earth has done this.

No, no one is saying gw is made up. What we are skeptical of is MAN MADE global warming. Not sure whether you left that little proviso out of your cute story on purpose or not.

What we know and the science we know is constantly changing. At this point in time I believe the science firmly shows that while the earth is generally warmed over the last century, human activity likely has very little to do with it. No one with an open, objective mind can state that man is the cause of the current warming trend (err cooling trend now I guess). It is unlikely that anyone can say that man is even most likely the cause of the current warming trend. Just a few things that we know lend credance to other explanations:

1) There appears to be at the very least a lack of understanding as to the power of CO2. If Co2 really has the power the alarmists say it does, we should actually be warmer. Other evidence indicates that excess CO2 in the air yield a diminshing return in heat trapping ability. Even more evidence indicates that man is responsible for less than a third of the CO2 in the atmosphere. That coupled with the fact that CO2 is .003% percent atmosphere really lead one to wonder how man (via increased CO2 emmission) can be the predominant cause of the warming. Science has yet to reconcile any of this.

2) Links above show that this in not the first time climate has behave this way

3) We also know the sun has just ended a long period of high activity so there is at least one other explanation.

4) We know the IPCC deliberatly falsified and omitted pertinant information from it's reports

When you can reconcile all of that then you will have convinced me that is me who is dreaming.

 

[TopGunna]

3) We also know the sun has just ended a long period of high activity so there is at least one other explanation.

But Bern, "experts" say that the sun can only be responsible for 25% of the .6 degrees of warming observed in the 20th century! It's just not that strong of a forcing!

This is why we need to switch over to Solar Power. While it isn't strong enough to warm the Earth by .6 degrees over 100 years, it's clearly strong enough to satisfy the energy demand of 6 billion people!

 

[Charles_Main]

I have pretty much stopped even bothering to post on GW threads preisley because the Hard Core alarmist just dismiss any sources that dispute their Ideas as Biased, or lies, and label anyone who questions even the smallest detail of AGW as a GW denier. Regardless of how many times you have said GW is happening, if you do not agree with everything they say you are a denier. It makes for pretty lame debate.

 

[Chris]

I have pretty much stopped even bothering to post on GW threads preisley because the Hard Core alarmist just dismiss any sources that dispute their Ideas as Biased, or lies, and label anyone who questions even the smallest detail of AGW as a GW denier. Regardless of how many times you have said GW is happening, if you do not agree with everything they say you are a denier. It makes for pretty lame debate.

One of the ways to falsify a debate is to misrepresent the views of the other side. You have done a nice job of that.

 

[CharlestonChad]

One of the ways to falsify a debate is to misrepresent the views of the other side. You have done a nice job of that.

That's his strategy in many threads...

 

[Bern80]

One of the ways to falsify a debate is to misrepresent the views of the other side. You have done a nice job of that.

and what belief are we falsifying? Do you not beleive man is the predominant cause of the warming trend?

 

[Chris]

and what belief are we falsifying? Do you not beleive man is the predominant cause of the warming trend?

Now you are misrepresenting his misrepresenting.

That would be misrepresenting squared.

 

[Bern80]

Now you are misrepresenting his misrepresenting.

That would be misrepresenting squared.

wouldn't the other side include you?

If so what beliefe of yours is being falsified?

 

[CharlestonChad]

and what belief are we falsifying? Do you not beleive man is the predominant cause of the warming trend?

Charles said that those who believe and spread the word of global warming ignore ALL information that disputes their knowledge of the subject. This is making an ignorant claim.

 

[Bootneck]

Many nights I wake in a cold sweat pillow soaked after a dream that gw is really just made up - I wake the wife and tell her why are they doing this to us - why - she kicks me and tells me gw is ruining our marriage so I wake the kids and they cry and wonder why is gw so important and i tell them it's all made up but they go back to sleep so i grab the paper boy off his bike and he screams - not another morning of your telling me about the made-up gw - he tells me next time he is going to drive his dad's car and run me over - so i go to dunkin donuts and tell all the Indians - they ask me what i want and i tell them about how gw is made up and not real and they smile and ask me what i want - so i tell an old lady in line and she says she'll call the police if I tell her once more that gw is made up....

whew...it was only a dream...or was it... which is it...

The issue isn't whether global warming is a fact! It is whether it is man made, or whether it is due to natural causes.

The world has been warming and cooling for millions of years and prior to the industrial revolution this can only have been due to natural causes. Interestingly, opinion amongst the world's scientists is split on this issue, but the version that is pushed by governments around the world is that GW is due to man's activities. No surprise there. It is in government's interest to create this view since it provides justification for raising vast additional revenues through green taxes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Charles said that those who believe and spread the word of global warming ignore ALL information that disputes their knowledge of the subject. This is making an ignorant claim.

No it is not. The mantra from you guys is that any report or study that disputes man made Global warming is funded by big oil and thus a lie. Any Scientist that publishes anything that disagrees with man made Global warming, according to you guys, is on the pay roll of Big Oil or is not really a scientist at all. You do not even dispute the information, just paint it as tainted and ignore it.

 

[jreeves]

Charles said that those who believe and spread the word of global warming ignore ALL information that disputes their knowledge of the subject. This is making an ignorant claim.

You should read through some of Kirk's threads regarding man made global warming then...

 

[midcan5]

This is long but counters those who think GW is not real and not caused by our wasteful ways.

global warming 43 min

Scam of the "Great Global Warming Swindle"